• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

?ú930,000,000 to be Champions...

Mulletperm

Mulletperm

Mauricio Taricco
Emirates Marketing Project's ?ú930 million spending spree to turn club into Premier League title contenders.

Exclusive: Emirates Marketing Project have spent ?ú930.4 million turning themselves into Premier League title contenders, a special Telegraph Sport survey of English footballÔÇÖs finances has revealed.

By Matt Scott
09 May 2012

The figure, which is based on the clubÔÇÖs three most recent annual accounts, lays bare the true cash cost of taking the previously mid-ranking club to the brink of their first league triumph in 44 years.

It also exposes the scale of the task facing them as they seek to comply with UefaÔÇÖs Financial Fair Play regulations, which took effect at the start of this season.

The full extent of City's outlay is one of the key findings of the TelegraphÔÇÖs unique survey of the financial health of the Premier League, based on clubsÔÇÖ most recent accounts.

For the first time in a survey of this kind, the Telegraph can reveal exactly how much cash each club earned ÔÇô and, crucially, spent ÔÇô during a season.

The study has uncovered that in the 2010-11 season:

*Top-flight clubs spent ?ú2.51 billion in cash, which was ?ú285.8 million more than they earned.

*The Premier League generated ?ú2.23 billion of income, which equates to 0.148 per cent of the entire output of the UK economy.

*Clubs spent almost ?ú400 million on signings after player sales.

*Wages for players and staff cost clubs ?ú1.52 billion.

*Premier League clubsÔÇÖ net debt was ?ú1.39 billion, costing them ?ú97.2 million in debt-interest payments.

*CityÔÇÖs spending loomed large in the results for the league as a whole.

Between 2008, when Abu-Dhabi-based oil magnate Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al-Nahyan bought them, and the end of last season, the clubÔÇÖs total cash outlay was ?ú930.4m, of which only ?ú365.3m was generated from their own operations.

The remainder ÔÇô ?ú565.1m ÔÇô had to be supplied by Mansour, the clubÔÇÖs billionaire benefactor.

That figure will have risen significantly over the course of the current season, although the exact final cost of winning the league will only be known when the next accounts are published in 2013.

Last summer, the club spent a further ?ú53.6m net on new arrivals, which will be reflected in those accounts, although they also secured a sponsorship deal with Etihad Airways which was reported to be worth ?ú400m.

When the gap between their income and expenditure peaked in the 2009-10 season, City were spending ?ú3.04 for every ?ú1 they earned, figures that show the battle they face to meet the ÔÇ£break-even requirementÔÇØ of UefaÔÇÖs new rules.

Telegraph Sport's survey uses the accounts of 19 of the 20 clubs who were in the Premier League last season.

Birmingham have been omitted because they have not met their statutory requirement to file accounts, which has led to the Football League issuing them with a transfer embargo.

This analysis gives supporters a clear picture of the health of their clubÔÇÖs finances and exposes to what extent they rely on the support of benefactors such as Mansour or ChelseaÔÇÖs Roman Abramovich.

It may make alarming reading for fans of Aston Villa, Blackburn Rovers, Bolton Wanderers, Everton and West Ham United, whose clubs have spent significantly more than they have earned.

Over the years VillaÔÇÖs owner, Randy Lerner, and BoltonÔÇÖs Eddie Davies, have shown a willingness to cover these costs, but would leave their clubs with major problems should they chose to stop doing so.

Blackburn and Everton, by contrast, have no such benefactor support to rely on, meaning they must sell players to close the gap between spending and income.

As BlackburnÔÇÖs relegation has shown this season, those sales can have a severe, negative effect on results on the pitch.

The analysis also highlights some fascinating trends which challenge conventional ideas ÔÇô not least that spending large sums on signing players can actually have a negative impact on final league position.

Previous studies have shown that a clubÔÇÖs league position tends to reflect their spending on wages. Telegraph SportÔÇÖs study suggests this to be accurate, so clubs which pay their players the most tend to finish highest in the league.

But, analysing the period between 2009 and 2011, it also found that clubs who spent greater sums than direct rivals on transfers actually suffered in the league.

West Ham, for example, spent a net ?ú20 million on transfers over the two-year period, which put them among the top 10 spenders.

But it was not enough to buy them Premier League security. In 2009-10 they finished 17th, six places lower than their wage bill ranked; the following year, they were relegated despite their signings and a wage bill which was 12th highest in the league.

Among the elite clubs last season, Chelsea and City both spent more money than Manchester United and paid higher salaries than United, but it was Sir Alex FergusonÔÇÖs team who won the league.

The study also shows how some teams manage to prosper despite being ÔÇÿselling clubsÔÇÖ.

Wigan Athletic (?ú574,000 profit), Blackburn (?ú2.2 million) and Arsenal (?ú15.9 million) all made more money in the transfer market than they spent in 2009-2010, and yet all three finished higher than teams with bigger wage bills.

Chelsea did the ÔÇÿdoubleÔÇÖ that season and yet made a profit of ?ú18.2 million on transfers.

Last season, Saudi Sportswashing Machine over-achieved more than anyone in this regard, making ?ú5.4 million in the transfer market and yet finishing six places higher than their wage bill indicated they would.

The figures point to how the club have skilfully identified talent at bargain prices while attracting big fees for selling players whose departures have not prompted a slump in the teamÔÇÖs form.

Emirates Marketing Project have been the dominant force in the transfer market since MansourÔÇÖs takeover, which came two months into the 2008-09 season (Telegraph SportÔÇÖs financial analysis includes the short period in that yearÔÇÖs accounts under previous ownership).

In the first three years under Mansour, they spent ?ú266 million cash on players after sales.

Over the same period the cumulative outlay on wages was ?ú390 million, meaning City were spending on salaries alone more than their income, of ?ú365.3 million, although the club would point to the ?ú61.6 million they spent on the regeneration of area of Manchester in which they are based.

Barring any slip up against Queens Park Rangers this weekend, Mansour will have a Premier League trophy to show for his investment, but it will have come at a 10-figure cost.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...lub-into-Premier-League-title-contenders.html
 
P.D. said:
He spends all that money yet half his emirate are starving and living in poverty
Click to expand...

Abu Dhabi? Think they're doing fine with regards to the Emiratis living there. They're golden, thanks to the oil revenues; looked after and provided for, without the need for actual jobs. They're happy. The expatriates are the ones who slog away to make the city function, but they're not citizens, and almost never can be, so they 'don't count'.
 
There are loads of poor people there same as in Dubai. Certainly when I was in Dubai there were thousands upon thousands of people living in slum type places on the edges. Has that now all changed?
 
P.D. said:
There are loads of poor people there same as in Dubai. Certainly when I was in Dubai there were thousands upon thousands of people living in slum type places on the edges. Has that now all changed?
Click to expand...

Nope. The same people live in the same slums, are forced to work in the same inhumane conditions and are denied their most basic human rights, same as always.

But these are not Emirati people. These are expatriates, legal immigrants who arrived from poor villages in India, Bangladesh and the like with the hope of a better life in those glittering cities across the Gulf. They arrived, and then had their passports confiscated and were forced into a very unique form of slavery, forced to work long, brutal hours in the sun with little to no pay and forced to live in those slums you witnessed. Hundreds of them commit suicide in desperation every year, and nearly all of them are trapped in the country, utterly unable to leave.

But they aren't Emiratis, so theoretically, the government isn't responsible for what happens to them. The actual 'Emirati' population is a tiny fraction of the actual population of the UAE, and Abu Dhabi. And those people are the ones the Sheikh needs to please. So they're given a cut of the oil revenues and receive health benefits, free education and as much money as they can carry. As a result, they're happy, and see no reason to question the Sheikh or the government. And as a result, Mansour is free to do as he wishes with his massive wealth.

You are correct; there are a lot of poor, desperate people in Abu Dhabi and Dubai. But they're not Emiratis, and they're not white either, so they have no rights, and are abused, exploited and degraded by the locals and the many construction and employment firms who rely on their virtually free labor to build the hotels, skyscrapers and glittering towers that fuel an image of the Emirates as a marvel of human enterprise.

And Mansour can spend what he wants on City, safe in the knowledge that the people who matter, the Emiratis, are contented and happy.
 
awesome dawson said:
Sounds like a disgusting country in terms of how they view the people who are holding up their economy.
Click to expand...

They're not people. At least, not to the top 20 percent of society.

I grew up in Dubai, and was privileged enough to be the kid of a fairly well-to-do family. Whenever we went out, to the malls, or the restaurants, we were trained, almost subconsciously, to not look at the many blue-wearing labourers toiling on the roads and perching precariously on the tall buildings. They were like machines to our minds; always there, never thought of as people like us. The Emiratis were a different matter entirely; they were gods, almost. They wandered around vicariously in groups and in expensive cars, and talking to them was almost forbidden, because anything you asked them would be met by a sneer, more likely than not. They weren't all like that, but that was what our middle-class society viewed them as.

I loved living there. I spent my childhood there. But then I grew up. I realised that beyond the white buildings were terrible slums filled with desperate people. People who weren't paid, or given decent food, or even a reliable source of sanitation. People who were forced to work from five in the morning to nine in the evening, right through the terrible mid-day sun. People who were killing themselves because there was no way out of the country, because their passports were held by the companies that 'employed' them. People. People just like me.

The people who built the roads, and cleaned the windows, and maintained the buildings. The people who cleaned the streets, kept the water running and ferried away the city's vast piles of garbage. The people who laid the wires, fixed the street lights, erected the big glittering towers I saw on the horizon every night. The people on whom the city was built, and on whose backs it was resting on. Being treated like animals.

I was disgusted. I left. I've never gone back. And I wonder, every time I see City fans talking about doing it 'the right way', if they'd think the same if they knew what really went on in the Emirates, in Abu Dhabi and Dubai and the rest of them.
 
As unpalatable as the figure of Sheikh Mansour's expenditure is prima facie, by the same token he's investing a serious amount of 'private' money into an area which has, for a long time, been devoid of any such investment. To that end, I'd seriously doubt whether the authorities would necessarily welcome any undue attention or sanction being placed upon Emirates Marketing Project under the auspices of 'FFP'.

I've read through some of the financial tests which FFP would seek to apply to commercial contracts and, with respect, they're going to have an awful job of enforcement. Almost by design, FFP allows for proxy ownership of title - which, in the commercial arena, introduces ambiguity. There is also the issue of dissolved beneficiaries, whereby any subsidiary of the parent could be assigned title of an asset, derive benefit from, yet be prescribed from inclusion into the ToR of the FFP. Once placed into liquidation, it would take a team of forensic accountants years to prove the two entities acted in coexistence.

FFP is going to be a lame duck; it means well, but the lengths to which you'd have to go to in order to gather evidence will, in the end, be too prohibitive. The narrative is, as I said, by design ambiguous and it relies upon a bond of trust, more than a threat of enforcement. In the commercial arena, the former carries absolutely no weight whatever, and therein FFP will be circumvented at every single opportunity.
 
Sheikh Ma Nuggets said:
As unpalatable as the figure of Sheikh Mansour's expenditure is prima facie, by the same token he's investing a serious amount of 'private' money into an area which has, for a long time, been devoid of any such investment. To that end, I'd seriously doubt whether the authorities would necessarily welcome any undue attention or sanction being placed upon Emirates Marketing Project under the auspices of 'FFP'.

I've read through some of the financial tests which FFP would seek to apply to commercial contracts and, with respect, they're going to have an awful job of enforcement. Almost by design, FFP allows for proxy ownership of title - which, in the commercial arena, introduces ambiguity. There is also the issue of dissolved beneficiaries, whereby any subsidiary of the parent could be assigned title of an asset, derive benefit from, yet be prescribed from inclusion into the ToR of the FFP. Once placed into liquidation, it would take a team of forensic accountants years to prove the two entities acted in coexistence.

FFP is going to be a lame duck; it means well, but the lengths to which you'd have to go to in order to gather evidence will, in the end, be too prohibitive. The narrative is, as I said, by design ambiguous and it relies upon a bond of trust, more than a threat of enforcement. In the commercial arena, the former carries absolutely no weight whatever, and therein FFP will be circumvented at every single opportunity.
Click to expand...

They have already circumvented the whole thing by "winning" a 400 million pound sponsorship deal..............with Mansours airline

Next a 500 million sponsorship deal for the stadium toilets with Mansour Bog Rolls
 
DubaiSpur said:
Nope. The same people live in the same slums, are forced to work in the same inhumane conditions and are denied their most basic human rights, same as always.

But these are not Emirati people. These are expatriates, legal immigrants who arrived from poor villages in India, Bangladesh and the like with the hope of a better life in those glittering cities across the Gulf. They arrived, and then had their passports confiscated and were forced into a very unique form of slavery, forced to work long, brutal hours in the sun with little to no pay and forced to live in those slums you witnessed. Hundreds of them commit suicide in desperation every year, and nearly all of them are trapped in the country, utterly unable to leave.

But they aren't Emiratis, so theoretically, the government isn't responsible for what happens to them. The actual 'Emirati' population is a tiny fraction of the actual population of the UAE, and Abu Dhabi. And those people are the ones the Sheikh needs to please. So they're given a cut of the oil revenues and receive health benefits, free education and as much money as they can carry. As a result, they're happy, and see no reason to question the Sheikh or the government. And as a result, Mansour is free to do as he wishes with his massive wealth.

You are correct; there are a lot of poor, desperate people in Abu Dhabi and Dubai. But they're not Emiratis, and they're not white either, so they have no rights, and are abused, exploited and degraded by the locals and the many construction and employment firms who rely on their virtually free labor to build the hotels, skyscrapers and glittering towers that fuel an image of the Emirates as a marvel of human enterprise.

And Mansour can spend what he wants on City, safe in the knowledge that the people who matter, the Emiratis, are contented and happy.
Click to expand...

There are 1.75 million indians in Dubai, 27 of them committed suicide in 2011, mainly for debt problems. Perhaps Monsour has massaged the figures.
 
Yet we got people on here who arent happy with us being third or fourth having spent a fraction of what bricky have spent i.e. ?ú5m.
 
mick cooper said:
They have already circumvented the whole thing by "winning" a 400 million pound sponsorship deal..............with Mansours airline

Next a 500 million sponsorship deal for the stadium toilets with Mansour Bog Rolls
Click to expand...

'At Etihad Stadium, every wipe gets us one step closer to building the City team of the future. So please, buy Mansour Bog Rolls; because, at Emirates Marketing Project, every arsewipe counts.'

'(Special introductory offer! Spend just 9.99 to have your roll embossed with the face of Carlos Tevez!)'
 
Korkythecat said:
There are 1.75 million indians in Dubai, 27 of them committed suicide in 2011, mainly for debt problems. Perhaps Monsour has massaged the figures.
Click to expand...

And you get this verified information from?

Indians aren't the only nationality represented among workers, you know. And please believe me, the story of the Indian labourer jumping to his death from the Burj Dubai was by no means a unique one.

http://dawn.com/2011/06/02/suicides-shed-light-on-darker-side-of-dubais-glitz/

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/expat/annabelkantaria/10143223/sunshine-suicides/

Plus the numbers of them that go unreported, for rather obvious reasons.
 
This may be a silly question but is every person that is originally from the emirates called an emirati i.e. could you be from Abu Dhabi but not be an emirati (disregarding construction workers etc who may have been born there etc)
 
Not a silly question at all. Most people don't quite understand how UAE citizenship laws work. Hell, even I sometimes stare stupidly when confronted with them. But, in answer to your question, if the person in question has Emirati ancestry (i.e, belonged to the clans that ruled the various Emirates, and still do), then he or she is an Emirati, and can claim citizenship. If you were born in Abu Dhabi, however, to non UAE-national parents, you wouldn't be an Emirati, and would merely have been assigned citizenship of the country of your parents. Same thing with immigrants with succesive generations of children in the UAE; unless you're married to an Emirati national, there is no way to claim a UAE citizenship, and thus no way to be called 'Emirati'.

Ergo, you could very well be from Abu Dhabi, have lived there your whole life, etc, etc. but not be an Emirati.
 
So really if your whole family originates from there then you are basically emirati but everyone else is termed as something else and therefore the state provides them with nothing
 
mick cooper said:
They have already circumvented the whole thing by "winning" a 400 million pound sponsorship deal..............with Mansours airline

Next a 500 million sponsorship deal for the stadium toilets with Mansour Bog Rolls
Click to expand...

Well, quite.

My understanding is that that ?ú400m contract sits with a company which is given non-football related status and ergo is out-of-scope of FFP. The company does though, include that company within its consolidated group accounts. Now, anyone who knows about group accounts knows that it's very easy to - legally - funnel funds from one to the other, and to - essentially - 'lose it'. There's a large element of CIP involved within the ?ú400m deal, so - again - more room for manoeuvre in terms of moving money around within the accounting structure; for instance, the holding company could be used as a fronting quasi bank, against which funds are drawn down against in order to offset expenditure which is incurred on the CS of the parent company. Emirates Marketing Project would - rightly - argue that it's all entirely above board and legal, and FIFA/UEFA would have one hell of a job to back-trace all revenue/expenditure to its point of source.

FFP is unworkable; an impotent gesture, and one which will disintegrate within a couple of years. To carry out a full forensic of Emirates Marketing Project's accounts would cost somewhere in the order of ?ú10m, if you used an ivory-league accounting house: do anyone seriously think FIFA/UEFA would pay for that!? Not a chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back